Yes she is accusing him of sexual assault, but not rape. It is amazing what you don't know. Eye-witness testimony is evidence, but usually from others than the person who is accusing someone of a crime. If that is really good enough evidence to consider firing someone, then I could get you or anyone else fired for anything at any time.

You are once again dodging around the fact that you have no evidence. Her testimony is evidence of nothing except for the fact that she has said that Kavanaugh did something. That is as factual of me accusing you of something right now.

It calls for as much investigation is possible. The FBI are not able to investigate it of course, but the police can. The issue is that there isn't much to investigate that they haven't already investigated. Short of a time machine, I fail to see what the investigation would find. They have already questioned all known and available witnesses as well.

You fail continually to see the reality of the matter. You seek to label me as an uncaring person because you have no evidence or facts to argue with. All you have is many many emotions towards a crime that may or may not have occurred 36 years ago. You ask what we would think if someone we love told us that they had been sexually assaulted or raped. The opposite of this scenario is this. How would you feel if you were falsely accused of a crime. This crime was said to have happened 36 years ago and has no evidence what so ever to support it. Now your career and whole life in general is being destroyed of baseless claims.

The only evidence brought forward by Christine Blasey Ford has been witnesses who were at the party. They have all so far said that they not only don't remember this happening, they don't even remember Brett Kavanaugh going to any of these types of parties. The most recent witness even said this: “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women,”
This article can be found here. https://nypost.com/2018/09/19/kavanaughs-prep-school-pal-fords-wrong-i-was-never-at-party/

Everything you said to my comment is undermined by one thing that you said.

No. Evidence is required for anyone to end up in jail.

This was my point for the whole post. I am deeply sympathetic for people who have been sexually assaulted. It is her and her lawyers job to prove that she was assaulted in this way. They have no evidence whatsoever.

Your whole post is based on misunderstandings and obvious falsities, so it's unsurprising you come to a conclusion like this.

My whole post and what I believe when it comes to this case is simple and fact driven. Your only argument is that I lack "Sympathy" for someone who has never proven that they were a victim of sexual assault." Essentially you saw someone who disagreed with you, but you have nothing to base your disagreement on so you decided to try and shame me into silence. Then when you were done with that you just said that my post was based on misunderstandings without providing a single misunderstanding.

Why does that surprise you? Sexual assault is one of the most underreported crimes. Are you unaware of that? Does the idea that a sexually abused fifteen-your-old was too scared or ashamed to go to the authorities seem strange to you?

First, yes I do know that. Going back to what you said earlier, "Evidence is required for anyone to end up in jail." No evidence means no jail and it also means that he can be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Also you said that she was a "sexually abused 15 year old." After reading what she described as happening you will find that she does not even claim he sexually assaulted her. She was in a room with Kavanaugh and one other person. They fell on a bed together and she thought he was going to do something so she left the room. That is her version of the story. She said that she thought he was going to do something. Therefor she was never sexually abused. Nothing happened.

He's already been demonstrated to be likely dishonest in his Senate testimony and his positions as a judge are highly objectionable to many.

I have been actively keeping up with the Kavanaugh investigation and such. He has not been proven to likely be dishonest yet and he was chosen as a candidate because he has essentially no objectionable positions as a judge. He has proven to follow what he believes the Constitution was written to mean, which is the job description of a Supreme Court Justice.

I feel that this topic is often taken in very weird directions. It really doesn't seem so hard to understand that one all powerful being could put themselves into multiple states of being. God would therefor still only be God while acting as three separate things. It is also reasonable to believe that these three different states of being were given different names simply to make it easier for people to understand. If one were to believe in God, it would make sense to say that an all knowing, all powerful being may be doing some stuff that we cannot comprehend. If we can't comprehend what God is doing, the easiest solution is for God to create a simplified way of explaining what is going on. In this case we were told that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost/Spirit are all one being with different jobs.
This is the same logic that allows Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion. They have one God with tons of different personalities that all have different powers, stories, etc.

To know absolutely that God exists one must have infinite knowledge.

There is another force at play when you introduce God to this equation. Without God, you must have infinite knowledge to prove he doesn't exist. If God does exist, you don't need infinite knowledge to know that he exists. All you need is for him to communicate with you. When God is introduced into the equation you don't need infinite knowledge because God already has it.

I think this whole thing has a very easy answer if we look at it with perspective. Kavanaugh was accused of sexually harassing Ford at an unknown time, at an unknown house, at an unknown party, 36 years ago. On top of that, she didn't report the crime 36 years ago. If she is able to ruin a man's career and life who otherwise seems like a great role model for everyone, then we are all in danger of having our lives ruined. I could accuse any one of you of having done something to me one time in a place somewhere around 40 years ago. If I have no evidence except for my emotions and you still end up in jail, then any of you has the possibility to end up in jail for rape, murder, theft, etc. After all I remember seeing you in my house 35 years ago trying to kill my pet. I didn't tell anyone at the time and I don't even remember the date, but it definitely did happen. If you don't believe me you are a sexist, racist, terrible human who just has something against innocent people. This is likely the most ridiculous political event I have seen in my whole life.

It is hard to talk about objective morality as a Christian because it really doesn't exist. I would say that objective morality, as a Christian, is simply doing what God wants you to do. In our religion there is sin and not sin. Christians talking about objective morality might say something like "killing, theft, disrespecting your parents, etc. are objectively immoral things." The issues with this argument are that God has told people to do these things in the past. For example, killing is said to be wrong in the Bible, yet God told David to kill Goliath. God even helped David in doing so. The only objective morality in Christianity is doing what God wants you to do. There do tend to be general rules that God would like people to follow in the Bible, but there are times when breaking these rules is not viewed as wrong.

From what I am able to comprehend there has to be something that is infinite. Our universe, for example, is always expanding. It must expand into something. Whatever this something is has to be in something else as well. This is true over and over until finally some space or thing is infinite. There will always be the issue of what one thing is in until that something is infinite.

I would argue that one does not need to justify their belief in a religion. There are a few type of people in general that believe in religions. There is the person that was born into a religion and continues to practice it due to faith. There is the religious person who has had an experience that allows them to fully believe in their God/gods. There is also the person who realizes that their beliefs match the beliefs of a certain religion and decide to follow that religion. None of these people are doing something that needs justifying.
I would also say that religions are just as argued over as science is. There are things in science that are dogmatic as well. If you are a scientist you cannot say that climate change isn't real because that is just something they are told to accept as a fact. It is the same in certain religions. There are some people who will tell you you have to believe something, but there will be just as many people that disagree.

If one non religious person were given information on all of the religions in the world and told that they must choose one, I believe they would simply choose one that most closely reflects their personal values.